Try to keep up wrote:
It's based on OLD data. Correlation is not causation. Sheesh.
Ignorant posters should keep quiet. From the Office of Financial Research, Department of Treasury. Read the entire piece you might learn a bit. Pay special attention to the chart on page five.
https://www.financialresearch.gov/briefs/files/OFRbr-2015-02-quicksilver-markets.pdfOpinions should be based on facts rather than unsupported opinions. Yours are nothing more than bullish propaganda.
Nothing he said is incorrect. You are offering a counter argument that does not address his point. Are you purposely trying to detract from the original point? That would suggest you know you are on thin ice.
la gente está muy loca wrote:
DATE PE TR
2000.1 __ 26.50 __ -0.58
2003.09 __ 26.42 __ 7.29
1933.07 __ 26.27 __ 6.54
2001.03 __ 26.10 __ 2.88
1992.01 __ 25.93 __ 12.84
1998.02 __ 25.85 __ 4.46
1894.11 __ 25.79 __ 11.04
1992.02 __ 25.59 __ 12.53
1895.01 __ 25.37 __ 11.6
1934.02 __ 25.25 __ 6
1921.12 __ 25.21 __ 6.88
1992.03 __ 25.16 __ 13.18
1933.08 __ 24.81 __ 6.56
2003.1 __ 24.75 __ 7.3
1992.05 __ 24.74 __ 12.2
1992.04 __ 24.72 __ 12.75
1894.1 __ 24.56 __ 10.47
1933.09 __ 24.46 __ 6.88
1933.06 __ 24.45 __ 7.15
1991.12 __ 24.33 __ 13.68
1998.01 __ 24.29 __ 5.27
1997.12 __ 24.23 __ 6.02
1894.09 __ 24.22 __ 9.5
1992.06 __ 23.95 __ 11.66
1895.02 __ 23.94 __ 12.23
1934.04 __ 23.91 __ 6.51
1992.07 __ 23.88 __ 10.19
1934.03 __ 23.73 __ 6.86
1934.01 __ 23.73 __ 6.82
1992.08 __ 23.60 __ 10.21
1997.1 __ 23.58 __ 6.57
1997.11 __ 23.46 __ 6.17
1895.05 __ 23.34 __ 10.75
1991.11 __ 23.27 __ 13.62
1992.09 __ 23.20 __ 9.64
1993.06 __ 23.18 __ 10.22
2003.11 __ 23.15 __ 7.58
1997.09 __ 23.06 __ 6.43
1895.04 __ 23.00 __ 11.91
1895.03 __ 22.96 __ 12.53
1895.06 __ 22.93 __ 10.66
1993.05 __ 22.83 __ 9.71
1997.08 __ 22.83 __ 6.23
1992.12 __ 22.82 __ 9.55
1894.08 __ 22.81 __ 9.2
1997.07 __ 22.80 __ 6.73
2004.01 __ 22.73 __ 7.01
1993.07 __ 22.72 __ 10.28
1993.03 __ 22.69 __ 8.51
1933.12 __ 22.66 __ 7.07
1993.08 __ 22.65 __ 10.07
1961.11 __ 22.61 __ 6.05
1922.01 __ 22.58 __ 6.74
1992.11 __ 22.56 __ 10.02
1993.02 __ 22.55 __ 8.6
1993.04 __ 22.53 __ 9.22
1993.01 __ 22.50 __ 9.51
1993.09 __ 22.50 __ 10.27
1961.12 __ 22.49 __ 6.66
1991.1 __ 22.49 __ 13.06
2004.02 __ 22.46 __ 6.88
1992.1 __ 22.43 __ 9.61
1933.11 __ 22.35 __ 7.12
1961.08 __ 22.27 __ 7.04
1895.07 __ 22.21 __ 10.95
1993.1 __ 22.20 __ 10.35
2003.12 __ 22.17 __ 7.42
1946.06 __ 22.12 __ 15.81
1961.09 __ 22.05 __ 7.37
1961.1 __ 21.96 __ 7.02
1933.1 __ 21.95 __ 7.88
1961.05 __ 21.80 __ 7.72
1895.08 __ 21.77 __ 11.19
1946.05 __ 21.74 __ 15.8
1991.09 __ 21.73 __ 12.73
1961.06 __ 21.66 __ 7.66
1993.11 __ 21.64 __ 10.48
2004.03 __ 21.62 __ 7.33
1997.06 __ 21.61 __ 7.26
1961.07 __ 21.55 __ 7.61
1961.04 __ 21.44 __ 7.97
1987.08 __ 21.42 __ 14.16
1934.06 __ 21.38 __ 8.21
1994.01 __ 21.35 __ 11.06
1934.05 __ 21.29 __ 7.85
1993.12 __ 21.29 __ 10.72
1962.01 __ 21.25 __ 7.5
1991.08 __ 21.24 __ 14.05
1921.11 __ 21.23 __ 9.47
2004.04 __ 21.23 __ 7.25
1962.02 __ 21.21 __ 7.52
1946.04 __ 21.20 __ 16.2
1895.09 __ 21.19 __ 11.15
1894.07 __ 21.07 __ 9.25
1946.07 __ 21.07 __ 16.76
1994.02 __ 21.02 __ 11.19
1933.05 __ 20.99 __ 8.67
1922.02 __ 20.91 __ 6.45
1987.06 __ 20.90 __ 14.54
1962.03 __ 20.86 __ 7.76
1938.1 __ 20.84 __ 7.84
1987.07 __ 20.81 __ 14.83
1961.03 __ 20.75 __ 7.89
1894.06 __ 20.67 __ 8.58
1938.11 __ 20.64 __ 7.23
1997.05 __ 20.60 __ 7.78
1896.11 __ 20.53 __ 12.96
2004.12 __ 20.48 __ 7.71
1994.03 __ 20.42 __ 11.18
1946.08 __ 20.27 __ 16.92
1895.1 __ 20.21 __ 11.46
1934.07 __ 20.18 __ 9.02
1991.07 __ 20.18 __ 14.59
2004.06 __ 20.17 __ 7.73
1929.09 __ 20.17 __ -3.41
1894.04 __ 20.16 __ 8.23
1894.05 __ 20.16 __ 8.42
2004.05 __ 20.14 __ 7.69
2005.02 __ 20.11 __ 7.85
1896.12 __ 20.10 __ 13.28
1987.09 __ 20.09 __ 14.64
1997.02 __ 20.09 __ 7.76
2004.11 __ 20.05 __ 7.93
1962.04 __ 20.00 __ 8.22
Trailing 12 Month PE ( Reported Earnings ) and Total Return 10 years later.
Oh, Snap!
So. What do you think that proves?
Among other things it proves that Igy is a liar. But we already knew that.
Current trailing 12 month PE:
Data supplied by the poster proves nothing since each instance quoted is below the current trailing 12 month PE, unless he wanted to prove my point. Furthermore, CAPE 10 and 12 month PE are entirely different measurements.
What I posted has nothing to do with an Igy liar, whatever that is. I have found this thread entirely too bullish as well as unrealistic. Most views are simple expressions of industry propaganda.
Oh snap! Yes SNAP has proven to be a rather poor investment, the current market is another expression of similar foolishness.
Bob King wrote:
Nothing he said is incorrect. You are offering a counter argument that does not address his point. Are you purposely trying to detract from the original point? That would suggest you know you are on thin ice.
See above post.
Trews wrote:
Among other things it proves that Igy is a liar. But we already knew that.
Did he lie when he said you were an expert on circumcision? I read that the other day.
Looks like drunk Igy has made a return. Are we at 18,000 already?
Bob Shiller wrote:
[quote]Try to keep up wrote:
It's based on OLD data. Correlation is not causation. Sheesh.
Actually correlation does not necessarily causation...but it very well may.
Do you want to try that again using English this time? Thanks.
Nonsense. Oil has been in a bear for months, but the markets keep setting records. Pay attention, think for yourself, and stop echoing what these talking heads are spewing.
Bob Shiller wrote:
CAPE 10 and 12 month PE are entirely different measurements.
Different, yes. Entirely different, no.
They are more alike than different.
Stanley Morgan wrote:
Bob Shiller wrote:CAPE 10 and 12 month PE are entirely different measurements.
Different, yes. Entirely different, no.
They are more alike than different.
The both have the letter P and E.
Bob Shiller wrote:
Bob King wrote:Nothing he said is incorrect. You are offering a counter argument that does not address his point. Are you purposely trying to detract from the original point? That would suggest you know you are on thin ice.
See above post.
Irrelevent. Are you purposely going off topic?
What topic was that?
Bob King wrote:
Nothing he said is incorrect. You are offering a counter argument that does not address his point. Are you purposely trying to detract from the original point? That would suggest you know you are on thin ice.
Bob said nothing other than the usual nonsense.
Bob Shiller wrote:
Stanley Morgan wrote:Different, yes. Entirely different, no.
They are more alike than different.
The both have the letter P and E.
Exactly. And in both cases, they stand for the same thing.